State v. Caulk
1705002474 & 1705004722
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jun 29, 2021Background
- Defendant Robert P. Caulk committed three armed robberies of the same 7‑Eleven in April–May 2017; surveillance video, clerk identification, and cell‑tower data tied him to the crimes. He was arrested after a May 8 robbery.
- A grand jury indicted Caulk on multiple counts including first‑degree robbery and PDWDCF; he rejected a plea offer and waived a jury trial, electing a bench trial.
- At the two‑day bench trial the State presented the clerk, witnesses, police investigators, a forensic analyst, cell‑tower analysis, and surveillance videos; Caulk did not testify or call defense witnesses.
- The Superior Court convicted Caulk of three counts of first‑degree robbery and one PDWDCF; the court declared him a habitual offender and imposed mandatory Level V terms; the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Caulk filed a timely Rule 61 postconviction petition alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of counsel (six claims against trial counsel, two against appellate counsel) and two claims of trial‑court error; postconviction counsel moved to withdraw under Rule 61(e)(7).
- The Superior Court reviewed the record and affidavits, applied Strickland and related precedents, denied postconviction relief, and granted postconviction counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Caulk's Argument | State / Counsel's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to investigate/present mental‑health & substance‑abuse evidence at trial & sentencing | Wilkinson failed to investigate or present mitigating mental‑health/substance evidence and thus was ineffective | Wilkinson obtained a psycho‑forensic evaluation, reviewed records, and presented relevant history at sentencing; mandatory minimums left no sentencing discretion | Claim rejected: counsel’s investigation and sentencing advocacy were reasonable; no prejudice shown |
| Allowing waiver of jury trial | Wilkinson permitted Caulk to waive jury and be tried by a judge aware of his history; ineffective assistance | Waiver is defendant’s decision; counsel advised Caulk extensively and the court conducted a full colloquy curing any counsel shortfall | Claim rejected: waiver was knowing/voluntary; no deficient performance or prejudice |
| Failure to investigate/prepare (meetings, witness contact) | Wilkinson rarely met Caulk, failed to interview witnesses, didn’t prepare => constructive denial of counsel | Trial counsel met Caulk repeatedly, used an investigator, subpoenaed witnesses, and prepared strategy; record contradicts Caulk’s claims | Claim rejected: counsel’s preparation was adequate; no prejudice shown |
| Inadequate cross‑examination | Wilkinson refused to ask client‑submitted questions and conducted perfunctory cross‑examinations | Cross‑examination choices are tactical; trial transcript shows active cross‑examination and consultation with Caulk | Claim rejected: tactical choices reasonable; Caulk failed to show what answers would have altered outcome |
| Failure to file suppression motion | Wilkinson ignored Caulk’s request to suppress evidence (statements, sweatshirt) | No specific suppression target identified; Miranda claim on appeal failed; sweatshirt dispute went to weight not admissibility | Claim rejected: no identifiable suppressionable evidence; even if deficient, no prejudice given strong ID and cell‑data evidence |
| Ineffective appellate counsel (Rule 26(c) withdrawal / non‑merit brief) | Appellate counsel’s Rule 26 withdrawal forced Caulk to proceed pro se and failed to raise trial‑court errors (conflict hearing, continuance) | Rule 26(c) counsel and the Supreme Court conducted conscientious review and found no arguably appealable issues | Claim rejected: appellate counsel reasonably found no nonfrivolous issues; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (identifies circumstances warranting presumed prejudice for counsel failures)
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (standards for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel)
- Neal v. State, 80 A.3d 935 (Del. application of appellate‑counsel ineffective assistance standard)
- Green v. State, 238 A.3d 160 (Del. discussion of counsel tactical‑decision deference)